IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/taf/jriskr/v17y2014i9p1207-1232.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Insights into the reception and acceptance of risk messages: nuclear emergency communication

Author

Listed:
  • Tanja Perko
  • Peter Thijssen
  • Catrinel Turcanu
  • Baldwin Van Gorp

Abstract

The objective of this paper is to test whether the effect of variables such as knowledge, attitudes, trust, risk perception, and psychometric risk characteristics changes in the different stages of risk-related information processing. To address this question, a distinction is made between two information-processing steps, reception (measured as a person's ability to retain the information communicated) and acceptance (measured as a person's level of agreement with the communicated information). An empirical study was conducted, using a radiological accident (2008) in Belgium as a communication case study. Face-to-face interviews were conducted on a large sample of Belgian population representative with respect to province, region, level of urbanization, gender, age, and professionally active status ( N = 1031) and among the population living in vicinity of the accident ( N = 104). All factors were measured on reliable scales (Cronbach's α > .75). The reception-acceptance model was used to produce new insights into risk communication. The results demonstrate that knowledge was the driving factor only for the reception of risk messages, while heuristic predictors such as psychometric risk characteristics, attitudes, and trust were most influential for the acceptance of risk messages. It is discussed how the results will facilitate a more thorough understanding of information processing and how they could be used to design more focused risk communication strategies.

Suggested Citation

  • Tanja Perko & Peter Thijssen & Catrinel Turcanu & Baldwin Van Gorp, 2014. "Insights into the reception and acceptance of risk messages: nuclear emergency communication," Journal of Risk Research, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 17(9), pages 1207-1232, October.
    • Handle: RePEc:taf:jriskr:v:17:y:2014:i:9:p:1207-1232
    DOI: 10.1080/13669877.2013.875933
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1080/13669877.2013.875933
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1080/13669877.2013.875933?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Sjöberg, Lennart, 2006. "Myths of the Psychometric Paradigm and how they can misinform risk communication," SSE/EFI Working Paper Series in Business Administration 2006:10, Stockholm School of Economics.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Gea Hoogendoorn & Bernadette Sütterlin & Michael Siegrist, 2021. "Tampering with Nature: A Systematic Review," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 41(1), pages 141-156, January.
    2. Benjamin A. Lyons & Heather Akin & Natalie Jomini Stroud, 2020. "Proximity (Mis)perception: Public Awareness of Nuclear, Refinery, and Fracking Sites," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 40(2), pages 385-398, February.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.

      More about this item

      Statistics

      Access and download statistics

      Corrections

      All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:taf:jriskr:v:17:y:2014:i:9:p:1207-1232. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

      If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

      If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

      If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

      For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Chris Longhurst (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.tandfonline.com/RJRR20 .

      Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

      IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.